Case law

Matter of Estate of Cavill

459 Pa. 411 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 5, 1974

Clearly, the statutory classification bears only the most tenuous relation to the legislative purpose. … Justice Black, emphasized the extensive power which a state possesses to establish rules of inheritance and the legitimate interest of the state in so doing.

Program Administration Services, Inc. v. Dauphin County General Authority

593 Pa. 184 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 20, 2007

both of these arrangements (the "Program Administration Agreements"), the bonds were purchased by private investors and the proceeds were used to create a "pool" of money that was available for the Authority to lend to qualifying … In applying this principle, however, courts should not lose sight of the respective roles of the General Assembly and the courts in terms of establishing public policy.

Argo v. Goodstein

438 Pa. 468 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 27, 1970

Furthermore, “the class of persons qualifying as business visitors is not limited to those coming upon the land for a purpose directly or indirectly connected with the business conducted thereon by the possessor, but includes … On these previous occasions, he was clearly a business visitor, as any vendor would be in such a situation. See Robb v.

Scungio Borst & Associates v. 410 Shurs Lane Developers, LLC

636 Pa. 621 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 2016

Accordingly, the court held that Section 2 did not clearly and unambiguously permit SBA’s claim against DeBolt in his personal capacity. … DeBolt thus agrees with the Superior Court’s conclusion that Section 2’s language was merely intended to establish that an agent’s conduct is imputed to an owner, and that an agent is not himself a contractor.

McKinley v. COM., DEPT. OF TRANSP.

564 Pa. 565 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 19, 2001

Conversely, in other examples, when it has intended to confer upon officers authority throughout the Commonwealth, the Legislature has also clearly so stated in the statute. … We acknowledge the policy considerations within the General Assembly’s purview in establishing the territorial jurisdiction of HIA officers.

Commonwealth v. Messinger

1 Binn. 273 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 26, 1808

The rule is introduced to guard against a false statement of the facts contained in a written paper, and presupposes the possession of the paper clearly in the adverse party. … This was an action of debt for a penalty under the statute, for killing game> The defendant pleaded the general issue, and relied that he was qualified by estate to kill game.

Commonwealth v. Bell, T., Aplt.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 17, 2019

Thus, the Court held that blood tests do not qualify for categorical exception from the warrant requirement under the search-incident-to-arrest doctrine. … Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution For all of the foregoing, I have relied exclusively upon federal constitutional jurisprudence, which I believe clearly establishes Bell’s entitlement to relief

Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Shower, W.

637 Pa. 208 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 2016

Rather, the trial and intermediate courts clearly applied general contract law in deciding that Appellees should receive the benefit of their bargains. … Nonetheless, as the Hainesworth court recognized, plea agreements clearly are contractual in nature. See Puckett v.

Commonwealth v. Barnett

2012 Pa. Super. 157 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 31, 2012

The court found that the statements made to A.M., J.W., and Cornish were “clearly relevant.” Id. at 91. … Orland, was presented for the purpose of establishing the impossibility of the allegation of penetration, a fact necessary to establish rape or aggravated indecent assault. Dr.

Commonwealth v. Cohen

489 Pa. 167 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 30, 1980

Appellant points to nothing on this record establishing that he made any timely request for a mistrial. III. … Prejudicial Material Pervasively Disseminated at Time of Trial The record clearly establishes that the repeatedly-disseminated prejudicial material was widespread throughout Berks County at the time of trial.

Buzby Estate

386 Pa. 1 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 25, 1956

The case relied upon as establishing the rule in Pennsylvania was Anshutz v. … The testator having clearly declared his testamentary intent to give Percival's "wife Rita M.

Locust Club v. Hotel & Club Employees' Union

397 Pa. 357 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 21, 1959

These cases made manifest that picketing, even though ‘peaceful/ involved more than just communication of ideas and could not be immune from all state regulation. … The reason for including “corporations not for profit” is clearly set forth infra in Salvation Army Case, 349 Pa. 105 .

ACLU of PA, Aplt. v. PA State Police

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 16, 2020

The decision shall clearly and concisely explain the rationale for the decision.” Id. § 67.1301(a). … Neither the RTKL nor Bowling clearly answers this question, but Bowling offers guidance.

City of Pittsburgh v. Commonwealth

539 Pa. 535 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 23, 1995

In order to qualify for relief under the act, a municipality must first have its pension plans reviewed by a commission which is authorized to determine whether the plans are distressed and to classify the level of distress … This section clearly and unambiguously states that the benefits of newly hired employees shall be in the scope of collective bargaining subsequent to the establishment of the revised benefit plan.

McKinley v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing

769 A.2d 1153 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 19, 2001

Conversely, in other examples, when it has intended to confer upon officers authority throughout the Commonwealth, the Legislature has also clearly so stated in the statute. … We .acknowledge the policy considerations within the General Assembly’s purview in establishing the territorial jurisdiction of HIA officers.

Commonwealth v. Karns

2012 Pa. Super. 154 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 27, 2012

In addition, we note that the facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence. … Ickes’ testimony never clearly *165 identified what conversion factor was used with respect to Karns’ blood sample, or whether the conversion factor used was generally accepted in the scientific community.

Moyer v. PHILLIPS, MD

462 Pa. 395 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 7, 1975

Furthermore, it has been determined that exemplary damages, which are clearly punitive, are consistent with the policies of the statute and do survive. Hennigan v. … To establish a qualified privilege, the defendant would be required to show his own good faith or lack of "malice." Id. § 115, at 794-95.

Heller v. Frankston

504 Pa. 528 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 18, 1984

Not only, as previously stated, is the fashioning of an alternative scheme an inappropriate judicial function, but also the suggested scheme would have been clearly contrary to the legislative expression of public policy. … Finally, Article X contains six miscellaneous *547 provisions for immunity from liability for the licensing boards, requiring notice prior to cancellation of professional liability policies, establishing the act's prospective

Commonwealth v. Lutz

508 Pa. 297 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 26, 1985

Armstrong, 495 Pa. 506, 512 , 434 A.2d 1205, 1208 (1981) ("Our rules give district attorneys broad discretion to select which crimes and which individuals qualify for diversion into ARD"). … To insure the openness necessary for a useful restraint against abuse of discretion, such an articulation is clearly required.

Rago v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

355 Pa. Super. 207 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 23, 1986

As a condition precedent to qualifying for survivor’s benefits under the No-fault Act, all non-spouse relatives must show that they were “dependent upon the deceased for support.” 40 P.S. § 1009.103; Chester v. … The Supreme Court emphasized in Kamperis that the No-fault Act clearly looks to a continuing series of losses with each failure of a victim to receive his or her normal financial remuneration for work the victim could have